Volume 11, Issue 1 -

A Federal tax on cannabis requires answers to several questions: 1. What should we tax? What should be the “base” or bases of a cannabis tax? (Possible bases include: price; weight of various product types [like flower, trim, and concentrate]; and THC content.) 2. Given any base, what should the tax rate be? 3. Should medical cannabis bear full tax? 4. Should marijuana advertising and selling expenses become deductible for federal income tax purposes? (That would treat cannabis businesses like other businesses; current Internal Revenue Code section 280E bars such deductions.) Recently introduced federal legislation provides answers, some more aligned with drug policy than others, to those questions.

Uruguay, the first country to enact legislation to legalize and regulate every level of the market for cannabis, will be an important example globally for jurisdictions contemplating whether and how to liberalize drug policies. A combination of political leadership by former President José “Pepe” Mujica and public unease over rising criminality led Uruguay to pursue reforms to place the cannabis market under legal authority of the state, rather than in the hands of illegal groups. The new law, approved in December 2013, encompasses medical as well as adult use, or “recreational cannabis” for which it creates three distinct sources of legal access: home growing, social clubs, and commercial sales through pharmacies. While most Uruguayans remain skeptical of the new cannabis law, the “Broad Front” coalition responsible for passing the law in 2013 renewed its congressional majorities and retained the presidency in the country’s 2014 elections. The current government of President Tabaré Vazquez has stated its commitment to fully implementing the law, but is moving ahead cautiously, mindful of ongoing domestic and international criticisms. While the International Narcotics Control Board (INCB) has castigated Uruguay for violating its international drug treaty obligations, Uruguay has argued that the country’s human rights obligations under international law take priority over drug control treaty requirements. Given the unprecedented nature of Uruguay’s new cannabis regime, successful implementation will require rigorous monitoring and evaluation and the flexibility to make revisions as problems emerge. Rigorous evaluation of Uruguay’s pioneering reforms can also provide important insights and knowledge for other jurisdictions that may wish to consider comparable regulatory approaches.

This article examines the variety of drug policy in operation within Europe by focusing on Sweden (relatively restrictive) and the Netherlands (relatively liberal) as case studies. It analyses European data to produce an in-depth overview of the nature of the illegal drugs situation in both countries, focusing on both successes and areas that could be improved. Finally it appraises the appetite for drug policy reform in terms of (i) cannabis regulation and (ii) treaty reform in each country. The main conclusions suggest that there are no common indicators of success by which drug policies in general can be judged, and there is little agreement within Europe about whether or not we are in need of drug policy reform. It suggests that a successful global drug policy should celebrate diversity and should also seek to provide an international framework within which different global drug strategies can be evaluated.

Illicit substance misuse has become a serious problem in contemporary China. The number of officially registered illicit substance misusers totals close to 3 million, having increased every year since the government’s first annual report on drug control in 1998. In recent years, synthetic drugs such as methamphetamine and ketamine, have become more popular than heroin which was previously dominant. However, illicit substance use continues to receive little  sympathy from the public, despite government’s efforts to move towards treatment and rehabilitation. For many years, compulsory detoxification centers and “education-through-labor” camps were the only treatment options. More humane approaches are emerging, including methadone maintenance, therapeutic communities, and faith-based halfway houses. Government response to drug trafficking remains draconian. Drug distribution and trafficking are among the dwindling number of criminal offenses that qualify for the death penalty. For future drug control policy, China appears willing to accelerate its experiment with decriminalizing substance abuse and applying a public health approach to the treatment of substance misusers. Evidence-based treatment programs through scientific research and rigorous evaluation should be the norm, and harm reduction needs to be seriously explored as an alternative to the harsh criminal justice regime. More importantly, reliable and multi-faceted forecast systems need to be established to monitor and estimate the size of substance misuser population and trends in illicit drug consumption. Finally, China should continue to expand its international collaboration and insulate its counter-narcotic programs from global politics.